The ban - one of the strictest in Europe - outlaws smoking in all bars and restaurants. Smokers will also be prohibited on television broadcasts, near hospitals or in school playgrounds.

I don't smoke but I don't mind it - I like a nargile sometimes (hubble bubble) and that is banned too.

This is going to hit business in a country that is teetering on the abyss. It is also hypocritical of the Government to ban something they profit immensely from. Also it is more control of the populace.

I don't agree with it.

Thoughts?

What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad

I don't smoke but I don't mind it - I like a nargile sometimes (hubble bubble) and that is banned too.

This is going to hit business in a country that is teetering on the abyss. It is also hypocritical of the Government to ban something they profit immensely from. Also it is more control of the populace.

I don't agree with it.

Thoughts?

The idea that it's going to hit business has proven wrong all over the globe. What happened here in Hong Kong is that more people who hate stinking like smoke after going out started going out more often, more than accounting for the small number of people who stayed at home (most smokers just took it outside). And smoking was and is VERY popular here.

And according to what that quote says, it seems what we have is far more strict. No parks, no beaches, no shopping malls. I think there's a restriction on private businesses with two or more employees as well.

The idea that it's going to hit business has proven wrong all over the globe. What happened here in Hong Kong is that more people who hate stinking like smoke after going out started going out more often, more than accounting for the small number of people who stayed at home (most smokers just took it outside). And smoking was and is VERY popular here.

And according to what that quote says, it seems what we have is far more strict. No parks, no beaches, no shopping malls. I think there's a restriction on private businesses with two or more employees as well.

I'll miss sharing a hookah in a bar every once in a while though...

In LA there are hookah salons. Have to agree that the argument that smoking bans are bad for business is BS. In LA restaurant business increased after the smoking ban ordinance passed.

The idea that it's going to hit business has proven wrong all over the globe. What happened here in Hong Kong is that more people who hate stinking like smoke after going out started going out more often, more than accounting for the small number of people who stayed at home (most smokers just took it outside). And smoking was and is VERY popular here.

And according to what that quote says, it seems what we have is far more strict. No parks, no beaches, no shopping malls. I think there's a restriction on private businesses with two or more employees as well.

I'll miss sharing a hookah in a bar every once in a while though...

The major hit has always been at the bars. There are those who like a smoke while they drink and this has caused them to stay at home and do their drinking. My feeling on the subject is. If the person is going to a smoking establishment, and it is setup as such, the govt has no business telling them they cannot smoke there. I don't care for smoking, so I would not care aesthetically if it were banned but these laws restricting behaviors are worrisome to me. Like seatbelt laws, it may save lives, but it always leads to more restrictions and regulation of private individuals.

NoahJ"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi

Sounds a lot like what's happened in the US (in certain parts) over the last 10 years or so. Though I think any smoking bans in movies and TV have actually been relaxed, which is interesting.

My thoughts on this:

1. I hate smoking. I hate being around it. I grew up with a smoking parent and learned to despise it. I would avoid restaurants that did not have a good smoking/non-smoking section separation.

2. I believe business owners (restaurants, bars, etc.) should have property rights and should be allowed to decide for themselves what customers they wish to cater to. They should be allowed to decide if they want to allow smokers or not or both. Going to a restaurant or bar is a not a right. If the place allows smokers and you despise it as much as I do, you don't go there.

3. Places where people are in attendance in a less voluntary situation (e.g., public schools with little kiddies sitting there while teachers smoke) is probably a little different case.

Sounds a lot like what's happened in the US (in certain parts) over the last 10 years or so. Though I think any smoking bans in movies and TV have actually been relaxed, which is interesting.

My thoughts on this:

1. I hate smoking. I hate being around it. I grew up with a smoking parent and learned to despise it. I would avoid restaurants that did not have a good smoking/non-smoking section separation.

2. I believe business owners (restaurants, bars, etc.) should have property rights and should be allowed to decide for themselves what customers they wish to cater to. They should be allowed to decide if they want to allow smokers or not or both. Going to a restaurant or bar is a not a right. If the place allows smokers and you despise it as much as I do, you don't go there.

3. Places where people are in attendance in a less voluntary situation (e.g., public schools with little kiddies sitting there while teachers smoke) is probably a little different case.

100% agreed.

NoahJ"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi

These total bans suck big time and are a disgrace. I smoke up to about a pack a day and love smoking. I love having a few beers and smoking, as does a large part of the population. In Scotland you can't smoke in bars and Baltimore banned it for the last few years I was there. You see people here freezing to death outside bars all day and night thanks to a bunch of control freaks who walk over peoples liberty like their mother fucking Theresa.

The right way to go about this would be that if say 30% of the population smoke, then 30% of the bars people should allow smoking or at least have a smokers bar within the establishment.

I spoke to a barmaid a few weeks back who said she smoked a pack a day and since the ban she's stopped coughing because she's not breathing in second hand smoke at work. She, the dumb cow, was all for the ban. Get another job if you can't hack it and keep your health problems out of our faces!

"Islam is as dangerous in a man as rabies in a dog"~ Sir Winston Churchill. We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.

These total bans suck big time and are a disgrace. I smoke up to about a pack a day and love smoking. I love having a few beers and smoking, as does a large part of the population. In Scotland you can't smoke in bars and Baltimore banned it for the last few years I was there. You see people here freezing to death outside bars all day and night thanks to a bunch of control freaks who walk over peoples liberty like their mother fucking Theresa.

The right way to go about this would be that if say 30% of the population smoke, then 30% of the bars people should allow smoking or at least have a smokers bar within the establishment.

I spoke to a barmaid a few weeks back who said she smoked a pack a day and since the ban she's stopped coughing because she's not breathing in second hand smoke at work. She, the dumb cow, was all for the ban. Get another job if you can't hack it and keep your health problems out of our faces!

Yeah...government coercion and violating people's rights sucks. But it only sucks when it is your rights they're violating.

Really? That's great! I must confess that your past posts led me to a different conclusion.

*I can imagine quite a lot of liberty and have been called pretty extreme and unrealistic in those views, so I'm guessing that what I can imagine is equal to the task.

You I think are a big believer in peoples liberty it's just that I believe liberty should include poor peoples liberty too. The UK NHS is a great example were people get liberty even if they don't have much money. In the US of course 50 million people don't have health insurance and many more have inadequate health insurance. Under your favoured policies that situation would get even worse. Liberty for all not just the few is my moto and the opposite is true of yours in many, many cases.

"Islam is as dangerous in a man as rabies in a dog"~ Sir Winston Churchill. We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.

The UK NHS is a great example were people get liberty even if they don't have much money. In the US of course 50 million people don't have health insurance and many more have inadequate health insurance. Under your favoured policies that situation would get even worse. Liberty for all not just the few is my moto and the opposite is true of yours in many, many cases.

It sounds like we might have different definitions of liberty. That would explain a lot. I would say that this probably has a good definition (from my point of view):

Quote:

Liberty is the concept of ideological and political philosophy that identifies the condition to which an individual has the right to behave according to one's own personal responsibility and free will.

You seem to be talking about a different concept that you're calling liberty.

I don't smoke but I don't mind it - I like a nargile sometimes (hubble bubble) and that is banned too.

This is going to hit business in a country that is teetering on the abyss. It is also hypocritical of the Government to ban something they profit immensely from. Also it is more control of the populace.

I don't agree with it.

Thoughts?

What is more important? The right of people to poison the air supply of everyone else around them, forcing others to passively partake of their addiction, or to allow smokers the right to partake of their addiction but without putting others' health in danger? Smoking in bars and restaurants here in California is banned... all public places are subject to this restriction.. and businesses are not suffering. People who smoke tobacco still have the right to smoke in their own homes, or outdoors, without acquiring a criminal record, going to jail or picking up a hefty fine.

I am the last last fan of government intrusion into peoples' lives, but there are a few areas, especially as regards public safety, where some 'liberties' are of lesser importance than the public good . Some obvious examples... there are laws that only allow us to drive on the right-hand side of the highway, or others that require us to switch on headlamps after sundown, or in bad weather... There are laws against dumping poisonous waste (unfortunately for us all, barely policed). Tobacco smoke is also a pollutant and passive (or 2nd hand smoke) has been conclusively proved to be dangerous to the health of non-smokers.

I used to occasionally smoke.. for 3 years, and very occasionally. Quitting was very *difficult*, even for a smoker as "light " as I was. As an ex-smoker, I detest tobacco smoke (as do pretty much all others). The smell gets everywhere, it makes your clothes stink, it trashes your health and the health of others around you. I can understand older people who have lives into their 70s and 80s and have been smoking all their lives... (they are lucky to have survived that long)... but in the 2000s.. with all the medical facts out there and well known ... kids are still starting smoke, as if there's something "cool" about it. WTF??? Are they trying to compete for a Darwin Award? Duh????

I am a bit of a libertarian...but with the proviso: in the pursuance of ones own liberties, don't stomp on the liberties of others.

"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow

What is more important? The right of people to poison the air supply of everyone else around them, forcing others to passively partake of their addiction, or to allow smokers the right to partake of their addiction but without putting others' health in danger? Smoking in bars and restaurants here in California is banned... all public places are subject to this restriction.. and businesses are not suffering. People who smoke tobacco still have the right to smoke in their own homes, or outdoors, without acquiring a criminal record, going to jail or picking up a hefty fine.

I am the last last fan of government intrusion into peoples' lives, but there are a few areas, especially as regards public safety, where some 'liberties' are of lesser importance than the public good . Some obvious examples... there are laws that only allow us to drive on the right-hand side of the highway, or others that require us to switch on headlamps after sundown, or in bad weather... There are laws against dumping poisonous waste (unfortunately for us all, barely policed). Tobacco smoke is also a pollutant and passive (or 2nd hand smoke) has been conclusively proved to be dangerous to the health of non-smokers.

I am a bit of a libertarian...but with the proviso: in the pursuance of ones own liberties, don't stomp on the liberties of others.

So if 99% of the population smoked we should ban it from bars for the other 1%?

"Islam is as dangerous in a man as rabies in a dog"~ Sir Winston Churchill. We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.

What is more important? The right of people to poison the air supply of everyone else around them, forcing others to passively partake of their addiction, or to allow smokers the right to partake of their addiction but without putting others' health in danger? Smoking in bars and restaurants here in California is banned... all public places are subject to this restriction.. and businesses are not suffering. People who smoke tobacco still have the right to smoke in their own homes, or outdoors, without acquiring a criminal record, going to jail or picking up a hefty fine.

I am the last last fan of government intrusion into peoples' lives, but there are a few areas, especially as regards public safety, where some 'liberties' are of lesser importance than the public good . Some obvious examples... there are laws that only allow us to drive on the right-hand side of the highway, or others that require us to switch on headlamps after sundown, or in bad weather... There are laws against dumping poisonous waste (unfortunately for us all, barely policed). Tobacco smoke is also a pollutant and passive (or 2nd hand smoke) has been conclusively proved to be dangerous to the health of non-smokers.

I think the bulk of what you're talking about can be dealt with using a proper framework of property rights.

The first and most basic right anyone has is the right to their own body. Ownership in their own person and physical body. Indeed smoking (as it exists right now) has polluting side-effects that can essentially intrude onto other people's property (body) at the very least annoying them, but worse damaging them. So this would be a violation of that person's basic rights. However...the sphere of this threat is relatively small. A few feet in most cases.

We also have the property rights of the bar or restaurant owner. This is their physical property and they should have the right to determine what activities are allowed in and on it. If they chose to allow smokers (they should never be forced to accept smokers) and this is clearly known to anyone who voluntarily enters the establishment...then I see no violation of the rights of a person who dislikes smoke. They are not required to enter the premises and can leave at any time and never return. Conversely, another bar/restaurant owner could offer an environment where smoking is not permitted and anyone who attempts to smoke can be removed from the property for violating the rights of that property owner.

Now, in public (i.e., government owned and operated) spaces (e.g., sidewalks, et al) the situation is more difficult. I could see a government ban in these publicly (i.e., government) owned and operated spaces. NOTE: This could be a valid angle for banning smoking within cars driving on the roads. Though, to me the ban for reasons having to do with "distracted driving" is the more reasonable argument. Note also that I would favor privatization of many or most or all roads allowing private companies to set their own rules here too.

Quote:

Originally Posted by sammi jo

I am a bit of a libertarian...but with the proviso: in the pursuance of ones own liberties, don't stomp on the liberties of others.

I think the bulk of what you're talking about can be dealt with using a proper framework of property rights.

The first and most basic right anyone has is the right to their own body. Ownership in their own person and physical body. Indeed smoking (as it exists right now) has polluting side-effects that can essentially intrude onto other people's property (body) at the very least annoying them, but worse damaging them. So this would be a violation of that person's basic rights. However...the sphere of this threat is relatively small. A few feet in most cases.

Where does one draw the line as to what part of a room is "polluted", and what is "clean"?

Quote:

We also have the property rights of the bar or restaurant owner. This is their physical property and they should have the right to determine what activities are allowed in and on it. If they chose to allow smokers (they should never be forced to accept smokers) and this is clearly known to anyone who voluntarily enters the establishment...then I see no violation of the rights of a person who dislikes smoke. They are not required to enter the premises and can leave at any time and never return. Conversely, another bar/restaurant owner could offer an environment where smoking is not permitted and anyone who attempts to smoke can be removed from the property for violating the rights of that property owner.

Understood. But is it right that society is duplicitous as regard smokers rights? Why should they be a "special case". Why should smokers be privileged as such, in that they indulge in an activity which kills and injures so many people that we ALL pay for it's deleterious health effects, through the nose, via inflated insurance premiums? And...what about the rights of bar staff and restaurant waiters etc? Or are the rights of low paid peons somehow of lesser importance than....

Quote:

Now, in public (i.e., government owned and operated) spaces (e.g., sidewalks, et al) the situation is more difficult. I could see a government ban in these publicly (i.e., government) owned and operated spaces. NOTE: This could be a valid angle for banning smoking within cars driving on the roads. Though, to me the ban for reasons having to do with "distracted driving" is the more reasonable argument. Note also that I would favor privatization of many or most or all roads allowing private companies to set their own rules here too.

Privatization of roads will invariably lead to restriction of access for many. Perhaps thats an inverted side effect of "libertarianism"?

Quote:

I would say that any true libertarian holds to the same proviso.

True ones, yes.

"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow

Where does one draw the line as to what part of a room is "polluted", and what is "clean"?

I think you missed the point. The first question is who owns the room you're talking about? That person sets the rules for the room. If they say it's okay to smoke in that room, then any voluntary entrant to the room must abide by and conform to the rules.

Quote:

Originally Posted by sammi jo

Understood. But is it right that society is duplicitous as regard smokers rights?

Shit, we have a society that is duplicitous and hypocritical about lots of people's rights.

Quote:

Originally Posted by sammi jo

that we ALL pay for it's deleterious health effects, through the nose, via inflated insurance premiums?

Maybe. If you insure with a company that also insures smokers, then this might be true. Here again though, given open competition, someone would be free to offer insurance to people who are exclusively non-smokers (or whatever).

Quote:

Originally Posted by sammi jo

And...what about the rights of bar staff and restaurant waiters etc?

They have a right to find other jobs. They are not slaves and so long as they enter into the employment arrangement with full knowledge of its circumstances and are free to leave it, I don't see a problem.

Quote:

Originally Posted by sammi jo

Privatization of roads will invariably lead to restriction of access for many.

Well if I had a road and wanted to make as much money as I possibly could I would only allow multib/millionaires on it and I'd make sure they never had to smell someones elses fag.

Ohhhh. I see now. I suspect you wouldn't be a very successful business person in that case. You would also miss out on the opportunity to be as rich as, say, the Waltons or Rockefeller or many, many, many others who became very, very wealthy by selling products to the people who are not "multib/millionaires."

Ohhhh. I see now. I suspect you wouldn't be a very successful business person in that case. You would also miss out on the opportunity to be as rich as, say, the Waltons or Rockefeller or many, many, many others who became very, very wealthy by selling products to the people who are not "multib/millionaires."

Greedy fuckers the lot of them.

Just kidding.

Did you know that in the uk once a road is deemed a road it must remain so by law. Some guy has tried to get knocked down the parliament and st Paulson because there are old public roads that run through them. He was trying to draw attention to issues. I forget which but you could giggle it if so inclined, or I'll provide a link upon occasion of there location.

Seriously, we need rules for the road, just like healthcare.

"Islam is as dangerous in a man as rabies in a dog"~ Sir Winston Churchill. We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.

Dont worry it wont be long before the fascists hire lobbyists to push for privatising the air we breathe.

They already do, they lobby to fuck it up for a buck. Who cares that in sunny California trumpets and Sammie joes car kill people through their stinking exhaust pipes, so long as smokers can't have a fag in a bar, who the hell cares...

"Islam is as dangerous in a man as rabies in a dog"~ Sir Winston Churchill. We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.

Yes. Best we keep things in the hands of the government so that won't happen.

True,true.

Don't foreign corporations have to be guarded against at all? I think there a major threat, trivial I know given the times, but they are, we are going to end up owned and ruled by people who's only incentive is their own.

"Islam is as dangerous in a man as rabies in a dog"~ Sir Winston Churchill. We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.

Don't foreign corporations have to be guarded against at all? I think there a major threat, trivial I know given the times, but they are, we are going to end up owned and ruled by people who's only incentive is their own.

Who is "we?" What do you mean by "owned by?" Are you "owned by" anyone*? What is the "threat?" How major is it? These are serious questions. You are offering claims and assumptions without supporting facts, evidence and reasoning.

*Frankly if there's any entity I currently feel actually "owned" by it is the US government. Its behavior certainly suggests a relationship of ownership of me (and just about everyone else.)